Party which initiates a court case
POPULARITY
Categories
39 episodes with plaintiffs
33 episodes with plaintiffs
26 episodes with plaintiffs
26 episodes with plaintiffs
29 episodes with plaintiffs
23 episodes with plaintiffs
21 episodes with plaintiffs
27 episodes with plaintiffs
8 episodes with plaintiffs
18 episodes with plaintiffs
25 episodes with plaintiffs
15 episodes with plaintiffs
8 episodes with plaintiffs
25 episodes with plaintiffs
29 episodes with plaintiffs
9 episodes with plaintiffs
7 episodes with plaintiffs
10 episodes with plaintiffs
12 episodes with plaintiffs
7 episodes with plaintiffs
9 episodes with plaintiffs
5 episodes with plaintiffs
7 episodes with plaintiffs
8 episodes with plaintiffs
6 episodes with plaintiffs
5 episodes with plaintiffs
13 episodes with plaintiffs
8 episodes with plaintiffs
5 episodes with plaintiffs
9 episodes with plaintiffs
6 episodes with plaintiffs
7 episodes with plaintiffs
5 episodes with plaintiffs
4 episodes with plaintiffs
4 episodes with plaintiffs
3 episodes with plaintiffs
3 episodes with plaintiffs
8 episodes with plaintiffs
3 episodes with plaintiffs
9 episodes with plaintiffs
2 episodes with plaintiffs
4 episodes with plaintiffs
10 episodes with plaintiffs
3 episodes with plaintiffs
11 episodes with plaintiffs
6 episodes with plaintiffs
4 episodes with plaintiffs
3 episodes with plaintiffs
3 episodes with plaintiffs
4 episodes with plaintiffs
4 episodes with plaintiffs
2 episodes with plaintiffs
3 episodes with plaintiffs
2 episodes with plaintiffs
Welcome to 'AI Lawyer Talking Tech,' your weekly deep dive into the profound transformations reshaping the legal landscape. We're witnessing a generational shift as artificial intelligence steadily integrates into legal workflows, augmenting human judgment and enhancing efficiency across numerous tasks. From accelerating document review and legal research to automating contract analysis and client intake, AI is revolutionizing how legal professionals operate, freeing them to focus on higher-value strategic work and delivering significant cost savings. However, this rapid advancement comes with critical considerations, demanding unwavering vigilance from practitioners to address ethical duties, ensure data security, prevent "hallucinations" or fabricated information, and tackle complex issues like copyright infringement and digital impersonation. As the legal field embraces this powerful assistant, the consensus remains clear: AI should supplement, not substitute, a lawyer's work, emphasizing the enduring importance of human oversight and expertise.Imagine reviewing six million documents by hand. For help, these lawyers turned to AI11 Jun 2025The Dropbox BlogBrightflag Releases Outside Counsel Benchmarking Report, Revealing Strategic Levers for Spend and Work Optimization11 Jun 2025Legal ReaderDisney, Universal Launch AI Legal Battle, Sue Midjourney Over Copyright Claims11 Jun 2025ARTnews.comHollywood studios target AI image generator in copyright lawsuit11 Jun 2025ArsTechnicaOntra's $70M War Chest Signals an AI Revolution for Legal Work in Private Markets11 Jun 2025Aragon ResearchHarbor: Majority Investment Raised From BayPine11 Jun 2025Pulse 2.0State Bar of Michigan releases comprehensive report on AI and the legal profession11 Jun 2025Michigan Bar JournalCommission on Professionalism Chief Counsel Mark Palmer to Present at Legal Geek North America11 Jun 20252CivilityThe Evolving Role of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Expert Analyses11 Jun 2025JD SupraTools of the Trade for Young Lawyers11 Jun 2025New York State Bar AssociationNavigating Immigration's New Era: Policy Turmoil, Caseload Surges, and Generative AI Solutions11 Jun 2025Legal Talk NetworkTLT joins forces with Legora to unlock new opportunities for lawyers and clients11 Jun 2025TLT SolicitorsEve Launches An AI Intake Specialist for Plaintiffs' Law Firms11 Jun 2025LawSitesHow GenAI Is Powering The Next Wave Of Legaltech Start-Ups11 Jun 2025Forbes.comAI in dispute resolution: Progress with prudence11 Jun 2025Trowers & HamlinsAI Hijack: The Court Just Legalized The Automation Of Lawyer Identity Theft11 Jun 2025Crunch BaseWSJ: AI Armageddon is Here for Publishers Living off Search Traffic, Including Law Firms11 Jun 2025Real Lawyers Have BlogsJustice John Couriel to lead judicial panel on AI at Annual Florida Bar Convention11 Jun 2025Florida Bar NewsVAIOT Mid-Year 2025 Recap: Engineering the Future of Legal AI11 Jun 2025Legaltech on MediumUnderstanding CC Licenses and AI Training: A Legal Primer by Sarah Hinchliff Pearson11 Jun 2025Stephen's LighthouseOpus 2 emerges as top AI solution for litigation management11 Jun 2025Legal Technology News - Legal IT Professionals | Everything legal technologyHow to Get Your CFO and IT Team to Approve Legal Software11 Jun 2025MatterSuite39 Norton Rose Fulbright practices recognized in 2025 Legal 500 US edition11 Jun 2025Norton Rose FulbrightThe Start of Something New? New Jersey's Proposed Privacy Rules11 Jun 2025Perkins CoieVenable Practice Areas and Attorneys Named to The Legal 500 United States 2025 Edition11 Jun 2025Venable LLPLegal 500 US 2025 Recognizes Sheppard Mullin Partners and Practice Groups Among the Best in the Country11 Jun 2025Sheppard MullinNew York enacts algorithmic pricing disclosure requirements: Effective date of new AI disclosure quickly approaching11 Jun 2025Clark Hill
Defeating the Darkness: Survivor Stories and a Prosecutor's Playbook to Reclaim Power and Find Justice in the Fight Against Sexual Assault in Our Schools and Institutions IF YOU'RE A SEXUAL ABUSE SURVIVOR, you may have tried to pick up the pieces and go on with your life. Whether or not your abuser was punished for their actions, the mental, physical, and emotional toll continues, affecting your relationships and health. And if the abuse happened while you were in a school, in your place of employment, or in an organization that was supposed to keep you safe, the questions linger.How could they have let that happen to me?Why didn't they see?How can I finally have peace with this?In Defeating the Darkness — Hope, Healing, and Justice: Preventing Sexual Assault in Our Schools and Institutions, Heather Brown shows you how to take back your power and make things right. You'll hear the stories of others like you who went from being victims to becoming heroes who fought for justice and helped protect others from enduring similar abuse.Want to be a guest on Book 101 Review? Send Daniel Lucas a message on PodMatch, here: https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/17372807971394464fea5bae3 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Plaintiff attorney and mediator Jill Bollwerk offers practical tips and insights that can help you be more successful in your next mediation.
Plaintiff attorney and mediator Jill Bollwerk offers practical tips and insights that can help you be more successful in your next mediation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This Day in Legal History: National Defense ActOn June 3, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the National Defense Act into law, marking a major shift in American military and legal policy. Passed amid growing tensions related to World War I, the Act dramatically expanded the U.S. Army and strengthened the National Guard, officially integrating it as the Army's primary reserve force. It increased the size of the Regular Army to over 175,000 soldiers and provided for a National Guard force of over 400,000 when fully mobilized. The law also created the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC), formalizing military education at civilian colleges and universities across the country.Crucially, the Act clarified federal authority over the National Guard, requiring units to conform to federal training standards and granting the president the power to mobilize them for national emergencies. This federalization of a traditionally state-controlled force marked a significant legal development in the balance between state and federal military power. It addressed long-standing constitutional ambiguities surrounding the militia clauses and reflected evolving views of national defense in a modern industrial society.The Act emerged from broader preparedness debates within the U.S. political and legal spheres, balancing isolationist tendencies with the perceived need for greater military readiness. Though the U.S. would not enter World War I until 1917, the National Defense Act of 1916 laid essential legal groundwork for rapid mobilization. It remains a foundational statute for the structure of the modern U.S. military.The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear two significant Second Amendment challenges involving bans on assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines in Maryland and Rhode Island. By refusing the appeals, the Court left in place lower court rulings upholding the restrictions. Maryland's law, enacted after the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, bans certain semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, while Rhode Island's 2022 law prohibits magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Plaintiffs in both cases argued that these weapons and accessories are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens and thus protected by the Constitution.The Court's conservative bloc showed signs of division. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented, indicating they would have reviewed the bans. Justice Kavanaugh did not dissent but issued a statement expressing openness to hearing similar cases in the future, suggesting that the Court would eventually need to rule on whether AR-15s are constitutionally protected.Lower courts rejected the challenges based on the weapons' military-style design and their use in mass killings, reasoning that they are not suitable for self-defense and thus fall outside Second Amendment protection. The challengers contended that these laws ignore the Court's prior rulings on weapons in “common use.” Despite recent decisions expanding gun rights, the justices allowed these bans to stand for now.US Supreme Court won't review assault weapon, high-capacity magazine bans | ReutersThree federal lawsuits filed on June 2, 2025, allege that major class action settlement administrators and two banks engaged in a kickback scheme that siphoned funds away from class members. The suits, brought in New York, Florida, and California, accuse Epiq Solutions, Angeion Group, and JND Legal Administration of securing illicit payments from Huntington National Bank and Western Alliance Bank in exchange for directing large volumes of settlement deposits to them. In return, the administrators allegedly received a share of the banks' profits.Plaintiffs claim the scheme dates back years and coincided with rising interest rates in 2021, which increased the potential value of settlement fund deposits. According to the lawsuits, administrators threatened to stop using the banks unless they shared profits. As a result, class members allegedly received lower payouts due to below-market interest rates on their settlement funds.Together, the defendant banks are said to control over 80% of the U.S. settlement fund market, while the administrators manage over 65% of class action services. The plaintiffs argue this arrangement violated U.S. antitrust law by reducing competition and fixing prices. JND and Western Alliance have denied wrongdoing, calling the claims baseless or inaccurate. Huntington declined to comment, and other parties have yet to respond.Class action administrators, banks accused of kickback scheme in new lawsuits | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at Spain's proposed 100% tax on non-EU homebuyers, introduced as a bold fix for the country's deepening housing crisis. The government is responding to surging public frustration over exploding rents—up more than 60% in Barcelona in five years—and the sense that local housing is being turned into an asset class for absentee owners. But while the policy grabs attention, I argue it misses the real target. The problem isn't who owns the homes—it's how those homes are being used. A blanket nationality-based tax is a blunt instrument that's economically ineffective, legally risky under EU and international law, and symbolically inflammatory.Instead, I suggest a more focused approach: taxing speculative flipping and underutilization directly. A resale tax on homes sold within a short holding period, calibrated by how quickly they're flipped, would discourage fast-moving speculation without penalizing genuine residents or workers. Similarly, a progressive vacancy tax—getting steeper the longer a property remains empty—would address the roughly four million vacant or underused homes across Spain. These tools would pressure banks and investors to put housing back into circulation while raising revenue for public housing initiatives.Critically, these proposals are neutral as to the owner's nationality. Whether a home is owned by a Spanish bank, a Canadian retiree, or a U.S. fund manager, what matters is whether it's being used as shelter or as a sidelined asset. The column makes the case that Spain's housing crisis won't be solved by turning foreign investors into political scapegoats, but by confronting speculative behaviors that choke supply and inflate prices—regardless of the flag the buyer flies. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
In Case No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, Defendant Shawn Carter, professionally known as Jay-Z, has filed a Memorandum of Law supporting his motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Carter argues that the Plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient legal basis and fail to meet the necessary pleading standards required to proceed with the case. He contends that the complaint does not present concrete facts to substantiate the claims made against him, rendering the lawsuit legally deficient.Furthermore, Carter emphasizes that the Plaintiff's complaint is not only baseless but also frivolous, warranting dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. He asserts that the allegations are unfounded and appear to be an attempt to misuse the legal system, potentially causing unwarranted harm to his reputation. Carter's memorandum seeks both the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff for filing a meritless lawsuit.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Motion to Dismiss FAC (SDNY) (15549242_8) (004).docx
In Case No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, Defendant Shawn Carter, professionally known as Jay-Z, has filed a Memorandum of Law supporting his motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Carter argues that the Plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient legal basis and fail to meet the necessary pleading standards required to proceed with the case. He contends that the complaint does not present concrete facts to substantiate the claims made against him, rendering the lawsuit legally deficient.Furthermore, Carter emphasizes that the Plaintiff's complaint is not only baseless but also frivolous, warranting dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. He asserts that the allegations are unfounded and appear to be an attempt to misuse the legal system, potentially causing unwarranted harm to his reputation. Carter's memorandum seeks both the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff for filing a meritless lawsuit.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Motion to Dismiss FAC (SDNY) (15549242_8) (004).docx
In Case No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, Defendant Shawn Carter, professionally known as Jay-Z, has filed a Memorandum of Law supporting his motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Carter argues that the Plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient legal basis and fail to meet the necessary pleading standards required to proceed with the case. He contends that the complaint does not present concrete facts to substantiate the claims made against him, rendering the lawsuit legally deficient.Furthermore, Carter emphasizes that the Plaintiff's complaint is not only baseless but also frivolous, warranting dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. He asserts that the allegations are unfounded and appear to be an attempt to misuse the legal system, potentially causing unwarranted harm to his reputation. Carter's memorandum seeks both the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff for filing a meritless lawsuit.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Motion to Dismiss FAC (SDNY) (15549242_8) (004).docx
In response to Defendant Shawn Carter's motion for sanctions, the Plaintiff argues that the motion is both frivolous and procedurally improper. The Plaintiff contends that Carter's reliance on a single television interview to challenge the veracity of events that occurred twenty-four years ago, when the Plaintiff was thirteen, does not substantiate a claim for sanctions. They emphasize that discrepancies in recollection, especially concerning traumatic events from decades prior, are common and do not equate to bad faith or warrant sanctions. Furthermore, the Plaintiff highlights that Carter's attempt to bypass the mandatory twenty-one-day safe harbor provision under Rule 11 lacks legal precedent and justification, rendering his request to expedite the filing deadline to one day as unfounded.The Plaintiff also underscores that expecting a sexual assault victim, particularly one who was a minor at the time and has disclosed being autistic, to have precise recall of all details is unreasonable. They reference New York courts' recognition that survivors of childhood sexual abuse may not remember exact dates or times, which does not invalidate their claims. The Plaintiff asserts that Carter's threats of immediate sanctions are intended to intimidate and silence the Plaintiff and other potential claimants, constituting an abuse of the judicial process. They conclude by urging the court to deny Carter's motion, stating that it lacks substantive merit and is procedurally defective.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - NYC-#6394976-v8A-Draft_Rule_11_Opp__MoL
In response to Defendant Shawn Carter's motion for sanctions, the Plaintiff argues that the motion is both frivolous and procedurally improper. The Plaintiff contends that Carter's reliance on a single television interview to challenge the veracity of events that occurred twenty-four years ago, when the Plaintiff was thirteen, does not substantiate a claim for sanctions. They emphasize that discrepancies in recollection, especially concerning traumatic events from decades prior, are common and do not equate to bad faith or warrant sanctions. Furthermore, the Plaintiff highlights that Carter's attempt to bypass the mandatory twenty-one-day safe harbor provision under Rule 11 lacks legal precedent and justification, rendering his request to expedite the filing deadline to one day as unfounded.The Plaintiff also underscores that expecting a sexual assault victim, particularly one who was a minor at the time and has disclosed being autistic, to have precise recall of all details is unreasonable. They reference New York courts' recognition that survivors of childhood sexual abuse may not remember exact dates or times, which does not invalidate their claims. The Plaintiff asserts that Carter's threats of immediate sanctions are intended to intimidate and silence the Plaintiff and other potential claimants, constituting an abuse of the judicial process. They conclude by urging the court to deny Carter's motion, stating that it lacks substantive merit and is procedurally defective.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - NYC-#6394976-v8A-Draft_Rule_11_Opp__MoL
In response to Defendant Shawn Carter's motion for sanctions, the Plaintiff argues that the motion is both frivolous and procedurally improper. The Plaintiff contends that Carter's reliance on a single television interview to challenge the veracity of events that occurred twenty-four years ago, when the Plaintiff was thirteen, does not substantiate a claim for sanctions. They emphasize that discrepancies in recollection, especially concerning traumatic events from decades prior, are common and do not equate to bad faith or warrant sanctions. Furthermore, the Plaintiff highlights that Carter's attempt to bypass the mandatory twenty-one-day safe harbor provision under Rule 11 lacks legal precedent and justification, rendering his request to expedite the filing deadline to one day as unfounded.The Plaintiff also underscores that expecting a sexual assault victim, particularly one who was a minor at the time and has disclosed being autistic, to have precise recall of all details is unreasonable. They reference New York courts' recognition that survivors of childhood sexual abuse may not remember exact dates or times, which does not invalidate their claims. The Plaintiff asserts that Carter's threats of immediate sanctions are intended to intimidate and silence the Plaintiff and other potential claimants, constituting an abuse of the judicial process. They conclude by urging the court to deny Carter's motion, stating that it lacks substantive merit and is procedurally defective.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - NYC-#6394976-v8A-Draft_Rule_11_Opp__MoLBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In response to Defendant Shawn Carter's motion for sanctions, the Plaintiff argues that the motion is both frivolous and procedurally improper. The Plaintiff contends that Carter's reliance on a single television interview to challenge the veracity of events that occurred twenty-four years ago, when the Plaintiff was thirteen, does not substantiate a claim for sanctions. They emphasize that discrepancies in recollection, especially concerning traumatic events from decades prior, are common and do not equate to bad faith or warrant sanctions. Furthermore, the Plaintiff highlights that Carter's attempt to bypass the mandatory twenty-one-day safe harbor provision under Rule 11 lacks legal precedent and justification, rendering his request to expedite the filing deadline to one day as unfounded.The Plaintiff also underscores that expecting a sexual assault victim, particularly one who was a minor at the time and has disclosed being autistic, to have precise recall of all details is unreasonable. They reference New York courts' recognition that survivors of childhood sexual abuse may not remember exact dates or times, which does not invalidate their claims. The Plaintiff asserts that Carter's threats of immediate sanctions are intended to intimidate and silence the Plaintiff and other potential claimants, constituting an abuse of the judicial process. They conclude by urging the court to deny Carter's motion, stating that it lacks substantive merit and is procedurally defective.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - NYC-#6394976-v8A-Draft_Rule_11_Opp__MoLBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In this episode, Zinda Law Group CEO Jack Zinda and trial attorney Max Massey share practical strategies that help attorneys deliver stronger results both in court and behind the scenes. Learn how telling your client's story effectively, narrowing your practice focus, and using impactful visuals can lead to better outcomes and deeper client trust.In This Episode, You'll Learn:How Telling Your Client's Story Improves Trial Success: Create emotional connection with jurors, adjusters, and judges by framing your case around your client's lived experience.Why Niching Down Can Build Authority and Grow Referrals: Fewer competitors and deeper expertise means more cases—and better ones.Translating Complex Facts Into Human Impact: Learn how to use expert insights and simple language to make technical details resonate.The Value of Joining TTLA: Access education, resources, and legislative advocacy to support your work as a trial lawyer in Texas.What Tort Reform Really Means for Your Clients: Understand the legal and financial realities affecting your clients' ability to recover full compensation.How “Day in the Life” Videos Help Maximize Settlements: Use visual storytelling to show the real impact of your client's injuries.Working with Translators and Building Trust Across Language Barriers: Preserve clarity, compassion, and connection with every client—no matter what language they speak.
In response to Defendant Shawn Carter's motion for sanctions, the Plaintiff argues that the motion is both frivolous and procedurally improper. The Plaintiff contends that Carter's reliance on a single television interview to challenge the veracity of events that occurred twenty-four years ago, when the Plaintiff was thirteen, does not substantiate a claim for sanctions. They emphasize that discrepancies in recollection, especially concerning traumatic events from decades prior, are common and do not equate to bad faith or warrant sanctions. Furthermore, the Plaintiff highlights that Carter's attempt to bypass the mandatory twenty-one-day safe harbor provision under Rule 11 lacks legal precedent and justification, rendering his request to expedite the filing deadline to one day as unfounded.The Plaintiff also underscores that expecting a sexual assault victim, particularly one who was a minor at the time and has disclosed being autistic, to have precise recall of all details is unreasonable. They reference New York courts' recognition that survivors of childhood sexual abuse may not remember exact dates or times, which does not invalidate their claims. The Plaintiff asserts that Carter's threats of immediate sanctions are intended to intimidate and silence the Plaintiff and other potential claimants, constituting an abuse of the judicial process. They conclude by urging the court to deny Carter's motion, stating that it lacks substantive merit and is procedurally defective.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - NYC-#6394976-v8A-Draft_Rule_11_Opp__MoLBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In response to Defendant Shawn Carter's motion for sanctions, the Plaintiff argues that the motion is both frivolous and procedurally improper. The Plaintiff contends that Carter's reliance on a single television interview to challenge the veracity of events that occurred twenty-four years ago, when the Plaintiff was thirteen, does not substantiate a claim for sanctions. They emphasize that discrepancies in recollection, especially concerning traumatic events from decades prior, are common and do not equate to bad faith or warrant sanctions. Furthermore, the Plaintiff highlights that Carter's attempt to bypass the mandatory twenty-one-day safe harbor provision under Rule 11 lacks legal precedent and justification, rendering his request to expedite the filing deadline to one day as unfounded.The Plaintiff also underscores that expecting a sexual assault victim, particularly one who was a minor at the time and has disclosed being autistic, to have precise recall of all details is unreasonable. They reference New York courts' recognition that survivors of childhood sexual abuse may not remember exact dates or times, which does not invalidate their claims. The Plaintiff asserts that Carter's threats of immediate sanctions are intended to intimidate and silence the Plaintiff and other potential claimants, constituting an abuse of the judicial process. They conclude by urging the court to deny Carter's motion, stating that it lacks substantive merit and is procedurally defective.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - NYC-#6394976-v8A-Draft_Rule_11_Opp__MoLBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Dan and Pat are joined by Ted Frank of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute regarding his recent oral argument before the Seventh Circuit.
The Combs Defendants have notified the Court of their intent to file a motion to dismiss the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Dawn Richard under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Richard's Complaint asserts 21 causes of action against more than two dozen defendants, alleging a wide-ranging sex trafficking conspiracy. However, the Combs Defendants argue that the claims are baseless, stating that even if the alleged facts were true (which they deny), they do not substantiate the claims made in the Complaint.The Defendants further contend that the claims are insufficiently pled, lack legal merit, and are barred due to being untimely by several years. Additionally, they highlight that contractual releases signed by the Plaintiff preclude these claims. The Defendants characterize the Complaint as an attempt to sensationalize what they describe as a straightforward commercial dispute.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628103.121.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Traditionally, litigators seeking to understand an individual's or organization's devices - specifically, how they store, access, manage, and delete information - have either asked a deponent to testify from memory or arranged for a costly forensic inspection instead. In this episode, Jim spotlights a fantastic middle ground: requiring a deponent (individual or 30(b)(6) rep) to bring their devices to the deposition and demonstrate their functions and programs or apps during a videotaped examination. This technique was just approved by a federal judge in a pending class action against the ride-sharing company Uber. It's one all litigators should be using. As Jim says in the episode, devices are where information now lives. Lawyers should be more aggressive in their pursuit of discovery related to devices an individual or entity owns and how they access, store, manage, and delete data.SHOW NOTESIN RE: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., PASSENGER SEXUAL ASSAULT LITIGATION, No. 23-MD-03084-CRB (LJC), 2025 WL 1393216 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2025); See Joint Discovery Letter Brief on Plaintiff's 30(b)(6) deposition notice seeking device demonstration is Document 2957; Order Resolving Discovery Letter Regarding Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions is Document 2995.Section 9.43, Physical Demonstrations By Deponents, p. 357-359, in the book 10,000 Depositions Later - The Premier Litigation Guide For Superior Deposition Practice: A User's Guide and Handbook on Deposition Tips, Tactics and Strategies for Civil, Administrative and Arbitrative Litigation, 4th Edition, 615 pp., by Jim Garrity, Esq., available on Amazon and just about everywhere else books are sold.
SCOTUS spent two and a half hours hearing oral argument on Friday in the birthright-citizenship cases consolidated in Trump v. CASA—not about birthright citizenship, but about whether district courts should be issuing nationwide injunctions. Many justices, and commentators on both sides, have criticized nationwide injunctions as a judicial incursion into executive policymaking in both Republican and Democratic administrations. But will the Court use this case to impose limits?We discuss:Plaintiffs in this case include 22 states. Absent a nationwide injunction, half the country would be under a different rule of birthright citizenship until the case resolves.CJ Roberts suggested that, in true emergencies, the Court can resolve a case fast, in as little as a month. Does this cut for or against nationwide injunctions?What does the Court think about using Rule 23 class actions as a substitute vehicle for nationwide relief?Are we heading toward a “guidance-free” 5–4 non-decision?Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.
John is joined by Christopher Padilla, Senior Advisor at the Brunswick Group and former Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade. They discuss the recent lawsuits challenging President Trump's sweeping use of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The IEEPA is a 1977 statute traditionally used to freeze assets or impose sanctions in wartime or against adversaries. Until now, IEEPA has never been used to impose tariffs, and does not mention the word "tariff." Multiple lawsuits challenging the tariffs have been filed in various courts, including several U.S. district courts and the Court of International Trade (CIT). The CIT, a court traditionally deferential to presidential authority over trade, is moving faster than other courts. It has already denied one preliminary injunction and scheduled initial arguments concerning standing and jurisdiction. The administration has moved to consolidate the challenges filed in district courts with those in the CIT. Plaintiffs range from state governments and Native American tribes to small businesses. The cases largely challenge the President's authority to issue the tariffs on four main grounds: (1) the IEEPA does not authorize tariffs; (2) the President must have clear congressional authorization to increase the tariffs under the Supreme Court's “major questions” doctrine; (3) the tariffs violate the constitutional separation of powers and nondelegation doctrine; and (4) the declared "emergencies" used to justify the tariffs—such as immigration or the trade deficit—are not genuine emergencies under the IEEPA. Even if the plaintiffs in these cases prevail, the administration could still reimpose tariffs under other delegated statutory authorities, although proceeding under those authorities will involve several procedural hurdles. Ultimately, Christopher believes that real change would require congressional action, which is unlikely in the short term, and that any rollback of tariffs may depend more on economic developments such as recession, stagflation or a collapse of the bond market than on court rulings.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi
Thabo Shole-Mashao, standing in for Clement Manyathela, speaks to Advocate Justin Erasmus, Chair of the Personal Injury Plaintiff Lawyers Association (Pipla), Mbekezeli Benjamin, Research and Advocacy Officer at Judges Matter, and McIntosh Polela, Spokesperson for the Road Accident Fund, about the Gauteng High Court's new mediation directive and its implications for civil cases. The Clement Manyathela Show is broadcast on 702, a Johannesburg based talk radio station, weekdays from 09:00 to 12:00 (SA Time). Clement Manyathela starts his show each weekday on 702 at 9 am taking your calls and voice notes on his Open Line. In the second hour of his show, he unpacks, explains, and makes sense of the news of the day. Clement has several features in his third hour from 11 am that provide you with information to help and guide you through your daily life. As your morning friend, he tackles the serious as well as the light-hearted, on your behalf. Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Clement Manyathela Show. Listen live – The Clement Manyathela Show is broadcast weekdays between 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) on 702 https://www.primediaplus.com/station/702 Find all the catch-up podcasts here https://www.primediaplus.com/702/the-clement-manyathela-show/audio-podcasts/the-clement-manyathela-show/ Subscribe to the 702 daily and weekly newsletters https://www.primediaplus.com/competitions/newsletter-subscription/ Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: www.instagram.com/talkradio702 702 on X: www.x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: www.youtube.com/@radio702 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This Day in Legal History: “Law Day” is BornOn this day in 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued a proclamation that did more than just slap a new label on the calendar—it attempted to reframe the ideological narrative of the Cold War itself. With Presidential Proclamation 3221, Eisenhower officially designated May 1 as Law Day, a symbolic counterweight to May Day, the international workers' holiday long associated with labor movements, socialist solidarity, and, in the American imagination, the creeping specter of communism.What better way to combat revolutionary fervor than with a celebration of legal order?Pushed by the American Bar Association, Law Day wasn't just a feel-good civics moment; it was a strategic act of Cold War messaging. While the Soviet bloc paraded tanks through Red Square, the U.S. would parade its Constitution and wax poetic about the rule of law. In short, May Day was about the workers; Law Day was about the lawyers—and the system they claimed safeguarded liberty.But this wasn't just symbolic posturing. In 1961, Congress gave Law Day teeth by writing it into the U.S. Code (36 U.S.C. § 113), mandating that May 1 be observed with educational programs, bar association events, and a national reaffirmation of the “ideal of equality and justice under law.”Cynics might call it Constitution cosplay. Advocates call it civic literacy.Either way, Law Day has endured. Each year, the President issues a formal proclamation with a new theme—ranging from the judiciary's independence to access to justice. The ABA leads events, schools hold mock trials, and the legal community gets a rare day in the spotlight.In the grand tradition of American holidays, Law Day may not come with a day off or department store sales. But it's a reminder that the U.S. doesn't just celebrate its laws when it's convenient—it does so deliberately, and sometimes, geopolitically.A federal judge ruled that Apple violated a 2021 injunction meant to promote competition in its App Store by improperly restricting developers' payment options. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found that Apple defied her prior order in an antitrust case brought by Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite. The judge referred Apple and its vice president of finance, Alex Roman, to federal prosecutors for a possible criminal contempt investigation, citing misleading testimony and willful noncompliance. She emphasized that Apple had treated the injunction as a negotiation rather than a binding mandate.Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney praised the ruling as a win for developers and said Fortnite could return to the App Store soon. Apple had previously removed Epic's account after it allowed users to bypass Apple's in-app payment system. Despite the ruling, Apple maintains it made extensive efforts to comply while protecting its business model and plans to appeal. Epic argued that Apple continued to stifle competition by imposing a new 27% fee on external purchases and deterring users through warning messages. The judge rejected Apple's request to delay enforcement of her ruling and barred the company from interfering with developers' ability to communicate with users or imposing the new fee.US judge rules Apple violated order to reform App Store | ReutersPalestinian student Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia University graduate student and longtime Vermont resident, was released from U.S. immigration custody after a judge ruled he could remain free while contesting his deportation. The case stems from the Trump administration's efforts to remove non-citizen students who have participated in pro-Palestinian protests, arguing such activism threatens U.S. foreign policy. Mahdawi, who was arrested during a citizenship interview, has not been charged with any crime. Judge Geoffrey Crawford found he posed no danger or flight risk and compared the political environment to McCarthy-era crackdowns on dissent.Crawford emphasized that Mahdawi's peaceful activism was protected by the First Amendment, even as a non-citizen. Mahdawi was greeted by supporters waving Palestinian flags as he denounced his detention and vowed not to be intimidated. The Department of Homeland Security criticized the decision, accusing Mahdawi of glorifying violence and supporting terrorism, although no evidence or charges of such conduct were presented in court.Members of Vermont's congressional delegation condemned the administration's actions as a violation of due process and free speech. Mahdawi's release was seen as a symbolic blow to broader efforts targeting pro-Palestinian foreign students, while others in similar situations remain jailed. Columbia University reaffirmed that legal protections apply to all residents, regardless of citizenship status.The relevant takeaway here revolves around the First Amendment rights of non-citizens – Judge Crawford's ruling affirmed that lawful non-citizens enjoy constitutional protections, including freedom of speech. This principle was central to Mahdawi's release, reinforcing the legal standard that political expression—even controversial or unpopular—is not grounds for detention or deportation.Palestinian student released on bail as he challenges deportation from US | ReutersA federal judge in San Francisco is set to consider a critical legal question in ongoing copyright disputes involving artificial intelligence: whether Meta Platforms made "fair use" of copyrighted books when training its Llama language model. The case, brought by authors including Junot Díaz and Sarah Silverman, accuses Meta of using pirated copies of their work without permission or payment. Meta argues that its use was transformative, enabling Llama to perform diverse tasks like tutoring, translation, coding, and creative writing—without replicating or replacing the original works.The outcome could significantly impact similar lawsuits filed against other AI developers like OpenAI and Anthropic, all hinging on how courts interpret fair use in the context of AI training. Meta contends that its LLM's use of copyrighted material is covered under fair use because it generates new and transformative outputs, rather than duplicating the authors' content. Plaintiffs argue that this type of use violates copyright protections by extracting and repurposing the expressive value of their works for commercial AI systems.Technology firms warn that requiring licenses for such training could impede AI innovation and economic growth. Authors and content creators, on the other hand, view the unlicensed use as a threat to their financial and creative interests.Judge in Meta case weighs key question for AI copyright lawsuits | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court appears sharply divided over whether states can prohibit religious charter schools from receiving public funding, in a case that could significantly alter the legal landscape for church-state separation in education. The case centers on Oklahoma's rejection of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School's bid to become the first publicly funded religious charter school in the country. Conservative justices, including Brett Kavanaugh, expressed concerns that excluding religious schools constitutes unconstitutional discrimination, while liberal justices emphasized the importance of maintaining a secular public education system.Chief Justice John Roberts is seen as a crucial swing vote. He questioned both sides, at times referencing prior rulings favoring religious institutions, but also signaling discomfort with the broader implications of authorizing religious charter schools. Justice Sotomayor raised hypothetical concerns about curriculum control, such as schools refusing to teach evolution or U.S. history topics like slavery.The case could affect charter school laws in up to 46 states and has implications for federal charter school funding, which mandates nonsectarian instruction. Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself, increasing the possibility of a 4-4 split, which would leave Oklahoma's decision to block St. Isidore intact without setting a national precedent.This case hinges on the constitutional balance between prohibiting government endorsement of religion (Establishment Clause) and ensuring equal treatment of religious institutions (Free Exercise Clause). The justices' interpretations of these principles will guide whether public funds can support explicitly religious charter schools.Supreme Court Signals Divide on Religious Charter Schools - Bloomberg This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
In this episode, Zinda Law Group CEO Jack Zinda and trial attorney Max Massey sit down for an honest conversation about the evolving realities of building a legal career and a sustainable law practice. From early job struggles to case strategy and managing the pressure of high-stakes litigation, Jack and Max trade stories, lessons, and the systems that help them keep improving. Whether you're managing your first caseload or leading a growing firm, this episode offers raw insights into the habits and mindsets that drive long-term success in personal injury law.Topics Covered: Time Management & Work-Life Balance Early Career Struggles & Career Growth Diversification vs. Specialization Dealing with Insurance Companies & Stowers Demands Case Management Systems & Checklists Assessing Case Value & Finding Recovery Sources Lifelong Learning & Building a Support NetworkKey TakeawaysTime Management & Work-Life BalanceJack shares how segmenting time between work, family, and personal health helped him move from late-night burnout to better productivity. The conversation touches on prioritizing outcomes over hours and having the right support system.Early Career Struggles & Career GrowthMax opens up about his early challenges breaking into the field, including juggling multiple roles at a small firm. His journey underscores the importance of persistence, humility, and saying “yes” to opportunity.Diversification vs. SpecializationJack and Max reflect on experimenting with different practice areas early on — and how focusing on personal injury law brought clarity, consistency, and better results for clients.Dealing with Insurance Companies & Stowers DemandsThey break down the role of Stowers demands, how to verify information from adjusters, and why being proactive with documentation can make or break a claim.Case Management Systems & ChecklistsJack discusses treating every case like it's going to trial — and how detailed checklists, playbooks, and case reviews help create consistent outcomes.Assessing Case Value & Finding Recovery SourcesThe conversation includes insights on evaluating damages, controlling litigation costs, and navigating post-judgment collection when assets are limited.Lifelong Learning & Building a Support NetworkJack emphasizes the importance of mentorship, communities like TTLA, and staying curious — while still developing your own systems and principles over time.
Plaintiff attorney Jake Plattenberger used innovative trial techniques to overcome key excluded evidence in a tragic design defect case.
Plaintiff attorney Jake Plattenberger used innovative trial techniques to overcome key excluded evidence in a tragic design defect case. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Kristina Khorram, who served as Sean "Diddy" Combs' chief of staff, has been implicated in multiple lawsuits alleging her involvement in Combs' purported criminal activities, including sex trafficking and abuse. In these lawsuits, Khorram is accused of facilitating the procurement of sex workers for Combs and managing operations related to alleged illicit activities. One lawsuit notably compared her role to that of Ghislaine Maxwell in Jeffrey Epstein's criminal network, suggesting she played a pivotal part in the alleged misconduct.In response to these allegations, Khorram has categorically denied any involvement in or condonation of such activities. In a statement to Rolling Stone, she expressed profound distress over the accusations, stating: "I have never condoned or aided and abetted the sexual assault of anyone. Nor have I ever drugged anyone." She further emphasized that the notion of her being implicated in such acts is "beyond upsetting, disturbing, and unthinkable," and expressed confidence that the allegations against her would be proven untrue.Plaintiff John Doe, represented by Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, files this complaint against Defendant Sean Combs. The allegations are based on personal knowledge and information. Plaintiff asserts claims against Combs, detailing specific grievances and legal grounds for action. The complaint outlines the nature of the alleged wrongdoing, including factual and legal bases for holding Combs accountable.This lawsuit seeks relief for the harm allegedly caused by Combs, requesting appropriate legal remedies. The complaint establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting evidence, and sets forth claims that Plaintiff intends to prove in court. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks justice and compensation for the alleged misconduct by Defendant.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.1.0.pdf
Kristina Khorram, who served as Sean "Diddy" Combs' chief of staff, has been implicated in multiple lawsuits alleging her involvement in Combs' purported criminal activities, including sex trafficking and abuse. In these lawsuits, Khorram is accused of facilitating the procurement of sex workers for Combs and managing operations related to alleged illicit activities. One lawsuit notably compared her role to that of Ghislaine Maxwell in Jeffrey Epstein's criminal network, suggesting she played a pivotal part in the alleged misconduct.In response to these allegations, Khorram has categorically denied any involvement in or condonation of such activities. In a statement to Rolling Stone, she expressed profound distress over the accusations, stating: "I have never condoned or aided and abetted the sexual assault of anyone. Nor have I ever drugged anyone." She further emphasized that the notion of her being implicated in such acts is "beyond upsetting, disturbing, and unthinkable," and expressed confidence that the allegations against her would be proven untrue.Plaintiff John Doe, represented by Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, files this complaint against Defendant Sean Combs. The allegations are based on personal knowledge and information. Plaintiff asserts claims against Combs, detailing specific grievances and legal grounds for action. The complaint outlines the nature of the alleged wrongdoing, including factual and legal bases for holding Combs accountable.This lawsuit seeks relief for the harm allegedly caused by Combs, requesting appropriate legal remedies. The complaint establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting evidence, and sets forth claims that Plaintiff intends to prove in court. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks justice and compensation for the alleged misconduct by Defendant.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Kristina Khorram, who served as Sean "Diddy" Combs' chief of staff, has been implicated in multiple lawsuits alleging her involvement in Combs' purported criminal activities, including sex trafficking and abuse. In these lawsuits, Khorram is accused of facilitating the procurement of sex workers for Combs and managing operations related to alleged illicit activities. One lawsuit notably compared her role to that of Ghislaine Maxwell in Jeffrey Epstein's criminal network, suggesting she played a pivotal part in the alleged misconduct.In response to these allegations, Khorram has categorically denied any involvement in or condonation of such activities. In a statement to Rolling Stone, she expressed profound distress over the accusations, stating: "I have never condoned or aided and abetted the sexual assault of anyone. Nor have I ever drugged anyone." She further emphasized that the notion of her being implicated in such acts is "beyond upsetting, disturbing, and unthinkable," and expressed confidence that the allegations against her would be proven untrue.Plaintiff John Doe, represented by Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, files this complaint against Defendant Sean Combs. The allegations are based on personal knowledge and information. Plaintiff asserts claims against Combs, detailing specific grievances and legal grounds for action. The complaint outlines the nature of the alleged wrongdoing, including factual and legal bases for holding Combs accountable.This lawsuit seeks relief for the harm allegedly caused by Combs, requesting appropriate legal remedies. The complaint establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting evidence, and sets forth claims that Plaintiff intends to prove in court. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks justice and compensation for the alleged misconduct by Defendant.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
A multi-bill effort led by attorney lawmakers in the Florida House of Representatives would roll-back many property insurance litigation reforms passed in the 2022-2023 legislative session. Those reforms are reminiscent of the Workers' Compensation insurance reforms passed in the early 2000's that today has Florida boasting one of the lowest workers' comp rates in the country. Former Florida Deputy Insurance Commissioner Lisa Miller talks with Jon Shebel, former President & CEO of Associated Industries of Florida who led the workers' comp efforts. Shebel draws direct comparisons between both reform efforts, argues that the proposed bills this session don't help consumers, and urges the legislature to listen to the data, as it did with workers' comp, that shows property insurance reforms are working to reduce homeowners insurance rates. Show Notes (For full Show Notes, visit https://lisamillerassociates.com/episode-57-floridas-property-insurance-reforms-lessons-learned-from-workers-comp/) Jon Shebel recounts his role in Florida's 2003-2005 workers' compensation reforms, which capped attorney fees and streamlined claims, reducing rates from the highest to among the lowest in the U.S. Florida's rates have dropped for the eighth consecutive year.“The biggest issue was litigation,” explained Shebel, on the reason for high workers' comp insurance rates. “Plaintiff attorneys had free rein to convince injured workers to sue their employers, often leading to drawn-out cases that weren't necessarily in the workers' best interest. There were cases where legal fees ended up costing more than the actual medical treatment and benefits for the injured worker.”Shebel said that very same incentive to sue contributed to Florida having the highest property insurance rates in the country between 2017 and 2023. By 2021, Florida had 8% of all homeowners' claims in the U.S., yet 76% of all homeowners' claims lawsuits, according to the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation. Likewise, a 2021 report titled Florida's P&C Insurance Market is Spiraling Toward Collapse revealed that “Of the $15 billion spent on litigated claims since 2015, only 8% was paid to policyholders. Plaintiff attorneys got 71% with the remaining 21% spent by insurance companies on defense attorneys.” Shebel said Florida's property insurance reforms took a lesson from its workers' compensation insurance reforms 20 years earlier.“Our strategy in workers' comp was to address the root cause, plaintiff attorney involvement. The main provisions included capping attorney fees, streamlining the claims process, and implementing stricter guidelines to prevent unnecessary lawsuits. This not only reduced legal costs but also ensured that injured workers got the benefits they needed faster, without the delays that litigation often caused,” Shebel said. All.... (For full Show Notes, visit https://lisamillerassociates.com/episode-57-floridas-property-insurance-reforms-lessons-learned-from-workers-comp/)
The Lawyer Stories Podcast Episode 223 features Charles Porges, Co-Founder and CEO of Novo, a legal tech company revolutionizing how plaintiff attorneys write medical chronologies and demands with artificial intelligence. Novo's technology automates this process, empowering attorneys to draft high-quality documents in minutes — compared to days if done conventionally — ultimately saving valuable time and resources. Novo's AI-powered platform analyses and parses client documents to extract the most relevant information, reducing the burden of administrative tasks and freeing up attorneys to focus on strategic work. Novo is the personal injury settlement engine, reshaping the legal industry.
In this case, the court considered this issue: Can a plaintiff state a claim under ERISA's provision prohibiting a plan fiduciary from knowingly engaging in transactions with barred parties, solely by alleging that such a transaction took place?The case was decided on April 17, 2025.The Supreme Court held that To state a claim under Section 1106(a)(1)(C) of ERISA, a plaintiff need only plausibly allege the elements listed in that provision itself: that a plan fiduciary knowingly caused the plan to engage in a transaction involving goods, services, or facilities with a party in interest. The plaintiff is not required to plead that the transaction does not qualify for an exemption under Section 1108. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the unanimous opinion of the Court.Section 1106(a)(1)(C) establishes a clear, categorical prohibition on certain transactions between a pension plan and a party in interest. ERISA's structure places relevant exemptions, including those for reasonable and necessary services under Section 1108(b)(2)(A), in a separate statutory provision. Because those exemptions are laid out apart from the prohibitions and refer back to conduct already defined as unlawful, they function as affirmative defenses. As a result, plan fiduciaries who wish to invoke an exemption bear the burden of pleading and proving it. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, are not obliged to anticipate and refute every possible statutory or regulatory exemption.Reading exemptions as affirmative defenses also aligns with longstanding legal principles and avoids unworkable results. Requiring plaintiffs to negate all exemptions—especially when ERISA includes 21 statutory and hundreds of regulatory exemptions—would be impractical and unfair, particularly because the relevant facts are often in the defendant's possession. Procedural safeguards such as pleading requirements, discovery limits, and Rule 11 sanctions enable federal courts to deter and manage meritless litigation without shifting the pleading burden to plaintiffs. Consequently, only the elements in Section 1106(a)(1)(C) must be pleaded to survive a motion to dismiss.Justice Samuel Alito joined the majority opinion in full and authored a concurrence, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh joined.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.
It's been a week filled with breaking news and, as usual, investigative journalists Mandy Matney and Liz Farrell are on it, starting with the arrest of Grant Solomon's mother. Grant was 18 years old when he was killed outside of Nashville under mysterious circumstances (and with his father, former news anchor Aaron Solomon, nearby). In the years since his death, Grant's mother has fought for law enforcement to take another look at her son's case and sought for protection for her daughter, who accused Aaron of sexual abuse. This past Friday, Angie Solomon was arrested and charged with attempting to hire a hitman to kill Aaron. Mandy and Liz break down what happened and why the accusations seem … off. Plus, reporter Beth Braden learns that two new witnesses to Grant's death came forward last spring and what they had to say is interesting. Also on the show, Jane Doe No. 1 stands up to Myrtle Beach Pastor John-Paul Miller's legal bullying. Plus a shocking (overlooked?) piece of evidence in the Scott Spivey case … no really, it's wild. Premium members get updates on Russell Laffitte's plea deal, Alex Murdaugh's latest attempts to manipulate dummies and what's up with Cory Fleming's appeal? Let's dive in...
"I give trial lawyers a menu of options," Andrew Gould explains to hosts Todd Smith and Jody Sanders about his strategic approach as head of appellate at plaintiffs' firm Arnold & Itkin. After building their appellate practice from scratch following his years as a federal prosecutor, Andrew shares battle-tested techniques for navigating the trial lawyer relationship. His "eyes-wide-open" philosophy ensures transparent communication about strategic decisions and potential appellate consequences. When asked about electoral changes affecting appellate courts, Andrew replies: "What matters to me as an appellate lawyer are the law and the facts, and that's all it should be."Connect and Learn More☑️ Andrew Gould | LinkedIn☑️ Arnold & Itkin on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | X | YouTube☑️ Todd Smith | LinkedIn | X ☑️ Jody Sanders | LinkedIn | X ☑️ Texas Appellate Law Podcast on LinkedIn | X | Instagram☑️ Texas Appellate Counsel PLLC ☑️ Kelly Hart & Hallman, LLP | LinkedIn☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon MusicProduced and Powered by
The last several days in Donald Trump's courtroom saga have been nothing short of remarkable. Just last year, after a landmark trial in New York, Trump became the first former president to be found guilty on criminal charges. The Manhattan jury convicted him on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records—charges stemming from the so-called “hush money” case, allegations that Trump covered up payments meant to influence the 2016 election. In a surprise decision, Judge Juan Merchan sentenced Trump on January 10, 2025, to an unconditional discharge, meaning Trump avoided jail time and probation. This outcome left supporters relieved but critics calling for more accountability, and, unsurprisingly, Trump used the moment to rally his political base, declaring vindication while vowing to continue his agenda.Meanwhile, in the federal courts, the legal tides shifted dramatically following Trump's return to the White House. The two high-profile federal criminal cases—one in Florida regarding classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, and another in Washington D.C. related to accusations of obstruction and conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election—were both dismissed soon after his inauguration. In Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was improper, dismissing the indictment. The Justice Department eventually dropped its appeal, effectively ending prosecution in both the classified documents and obstruction matters. In D.C., Judge Tanya Chutkan granted a government motion to dismiss, closing the chapter on one of the most watched legal battles tied to January 6th.However, the courtrooms have not emptied. In the past month, drama erupted over President Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act. The administration deported over 100 Venezuelan nationals, alleged gang members, to El Salvador, even as federal Judge James Boasberg ordered those planes turned back to the United States. Plaintiffs' lawyers argued Trump's team violated the judge's order, and Judge Boasberg himself accused the administration of “bad faith” for rushing removals before the courts could weigh in. Although the Supreme Court later allowed further deportations, citing jurisdictional issues, the episode inflamed debate about executive power and the rule of law.In parallel, President Trump has issued a flurry of executive orders, including directives to repeal regulations inconsistent with recent Supreme Court decisions, further polarizing the broader national conversation. Across the country, every courtroom appearance, filing, and headline ensures that the legal fights surrounding Donald Trump remain central to American life, driving both the news cycle and the ongoing political divide.
In this episode of The Effective Lawyer, Zinda Law Group CEO and founder Jack Zinda answers listener-submitted questions about building a law firm that runs on systems—not chaos.If you're constantly putting out fires, working long hours, and struggling to grow your firm, Jack offers practical strategies to bring clarity, structure, and intentional leadership to your practice. He walks through his weekly planning system, explains how to create an “ideal week,” and shares tools for better delegation and follow-up.Whether you're a solo attorney or managing a growing team, this episode offers real-world advice to help you take back control of your time and build a scalable firm.In This Episode: How systems create efficiency, scalability, and work-life balance Jack's weekly planning and review process Building an “ideal week” for energy and productivity Strategies for delegation and consistent follow-up The value of weekly reflection for continuous improvementContact Jack Zinda:jack@zindalaw.com512-246-2224
Biracial, binational, queer human right activist Jason Jones began his lawsuit against Trinidad and Tobago's British colonial ban on same-gender sex in 2017. It was struck down in 2018, but an appeals court recently overturned that ruling and reinstated the law. Jones has one more chance to appeal that decision (interviewed by David Hunt). And in NewsWrap: transgender professional player Harriet Haynes sues the English Blackball Pool Federation to let her compete in the appropriate gender category, Redmond Sullivan is no longer a member of the Wagner College Iconic Fencing Club after a cisgender opponent refuses to play her, the Trump administration freezes Maine's federal education funding because of the state's trans-inclusive policies, queer-themed titles top the American Library Association's list of most banned books for the fourth consecutive year, the White House refuses to respond to journalists who use preferred pronouns, and more international LGBTQ+ news reported this week by Ret and David Hunt (produced by Brian DeShazor). All this on the April 14, 2025 edition of This Way Out! Join our family of listener-donors today at http://thiswayout.org/donate/
In this episode of From Lawyer to Employer, host Dan Schwartz welcomes back acclaimed plaintiff-side employment attorney Nina Pirrotti for a frank discussion about where employers often go wrong and how to do better. From inconsistently enforced policies and botched investigations to poorly trained supervisors and missteps in handling accommodations, Nina shares real-life cautionary tales and practical advice. Whether you represent employers or employees, this episode offers invaluable insights into preventing workplace liability before it starts.
Send us a textAfter much anticipation since we started this podcast, Stuart Colburn joins us for a special episode focused on Texas! Stuart, a shareholder at Downs & Stanford, P.C., has over 25 years of experience in workers' compensation. He shares his journey into our industry and expertly navigates the evolution of the Texas Workers' Compensation system since the 1980s. Throughout the conversation, he highlights the unique aspects that make Texas' approach distinctly different from those of other states.Stuart is board certified in Workers' Compensation Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and was the founder and first Chair of the State Bar of Texas Workers' Compensation Section. He co-authors the Texas Workers' Compensation Handbook published by LexisNexis and, as a certified lobbyist and frequent Division of Workers' Compensation conference representative, brings valuable policy perspective to the conversation.(Correction: Stuart mentions 2011 as the year Wikipedia and iTunes emerged; however, the correct year is 2001.)NOTE: Stuart shares a slide deck during this episode, which you can see in the video version on our YouTube channel. Resources mentioned in this episode:Texas Workers' Compensation Handbook 2025 EditionTexas Department of Insurance - Workers' Compensation Texas Subsequent Injury FundAmerican Medical Association (AMA) GuidesOfficial Disability Guidelines ODG by MCG National Comp ConferenceStuart Colburn bio¡Muchas Gracias! Thank you for listening. We would appreciate you sharing our podcast with your friends on social media. Find Yvonne and Rafael on Linked In or follow us on Twitter @deconstructcomp
OA1149 - Even as most of the Biglaw establishment falls to Trump's whims, lawyers from smaller firms are stepping up to do the most necessary work on the most important issues of our times. We're here to tell you a little more about some of them! But first: The House passes the “No Rogue Rulings Act” and we rip into some fascist nonsense from MAGA legal “thinker” Mike Davis defending the President's absolute right to call anyone a terrorist and send them to hell without a hearing. Also: DHS's “evidence”(?) in support of Mahmoud Kahlil's deportation, SCOTUS ‘s surprise mid-episode ruling ordering the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from a Salvadoran gulag, and more on the truly inspirational lawyers who are aggressively pushing these fights forward. In today's footnote: can you sue ChatGPT for “hallucinating” terrible stories about you? One heavily-armed Georgia talk show host is gunning to find out. The “No Rogue Rulings Act” (HR 1526) Amicus brief filed in Korematsu Center et al in Perkins Coie v. DOJ (4/9/25) DHS “evidence” filed in Mahmoud Kahlil's deportation proceedings (4/10/25) U.S. Supreme Court's order in Noem v. Abrego Garcia (04/10/2025) Plaintiff's complaint in Walters v OpenAI “SCOTUS must stop leftist judges' lawless sabotage of Trump agenda | Fox News, Mike Davis (3/31/25) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! This content is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org.
This episode examines a lawsuit against Sean Combs, Emilio Estefan, and others by Manzaro Joseph, alleging human trafficking and severe abuse. #Diddy #seancombs #courtneyburgess #exposedpodcastfiles #podcast #exposed #seancombs #rap #cassie Timestamps 02:49 Allegations and Key Defendants06:05 The Plaintiff's Experience09:56 The Freak-Off Event16:52 Charges against “Diddy”21:51 New Developments in the Case25:55 Dismissals and Legal ChallengesLegal Note: This Case has not been criminally decided and all persons discussed in this podcast are assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The criminal or civil charges expressed in this podcast are taken from public record and not the direct opinions of the host or producers of this podcast. For collaborations, promotions, or appearances email Jim at: https://www.exposedpodcastfiles@gmail.com Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/exposed-scandalous-files-of-the-elite--6073723/support.
Searchlight New Mexico reporter Joshua Bowling sits down with Levi Monagle, an attorney who has represented survivors of Catholic sexual abuse. That includes about 140 cases exposed during the recent bankruptcy proceedings against the Archdiocese of Santa Fe. During that time, the church created a public list of 83 credibly accused priests — a list that Monagle says is woefully incomplete.Host: Lou DiVizioCorrespondent: Joshua BowlingGuest: Levi Monagle, Plaintiffs' Attorney For More Information: Undercount: why the Catholic church won't list many New Mexico priests who've been linked to sexual abuse – Searchlight New Mexico
In this episode of The Effective Lawyer, Zinda Law Group CEO and founder, Jack Zinda, answers your listener questions. Discussed in this Episode:Self-managing law firmReferral pipelineClient referrals & reviews Saying no to bad casesManaging cash flowFinancial mistakesStaying motivatedBiggest regretSelf-Managing Law Firm: How do you create a self-managing law firm when you feel like you have to be involved in everything?Break down your tasks: What do you like doing vs. what you don't?Hand off the stuff you hate: Slowly delegate to employees, part-timers, or contractors.Start small: Hire an admin if you hate e-filing and paying bills.Figure out your worth: Put a dollar value on your time to see if you're doing tasks someone else should.Referral Pipeline: How do you get more referrals from other attorneys?Set goals: How many referrals do you want? Where do they currently come from?Go where the people are: Social media, email, speaking gigs, networking events.Have a plan: Measure your success before the actual referral.Networking is key: Go to events, introduce yourself, and get cards.Follow up: Email people you meet, invite them for lunch, and keep their info.Be consistent: Do this regularly to build a network.Client Referrals & Reviews: How do you get past clients to refer and leave positive reviews?Do good work: Seriously, be a good lawyer.Care about clients: It makes a huge difference.Get personal: Learn about their life and bring it up in conversations.First-name basis: Makes things feel friendly.Appointments only: Focus on their case without distractions.Sell your work: Tell them everything you've done on their case.Consistent contact: One-business-day rule for responses, 30-day updates.Remind them you exist: Social media, emails, cards.Ask for referrals: Don't be shy!Saying No to Bad Cases: How to avoid cases that drain resources?Set your standards: What's a "good" vs "bad" case for your firm?Value threshold: Have a minimum value for cases you take.Client behavior: Don't tolerate violent or abusive clients.Be upfront: Explain your process and investigation stage from the start.Refer out or reject: If a case isn't worth it, refer it to another firm or decline.Please don't blame the client: Frame it as the circumstances, not them.Managing Cash Flow: How do you handle cash flow when waiting for big settlements?Plan for delays: Build cash reserves (at least 2 months of expenses).Case volume: Have enough cases so you're not relying on one big one.Don't count your chickens: Don't spend money until it's in hand.Be aggressive in getting funds: Track and follow up on settlements.Financial Mistakes: What are the biggest money mistakes made by personal injury law firms?Shady marketing: Be careful of expensive companies that don't deliver.Expensive rent: Don't overspend on office space too soon.Hiring issues: Don't hire/fire too quickly, and don't underpay/overpay.No budget: Have a budget and understand your finances.Staying Motivated: How do you stay motivated with stressful cases/clients?Exercise: It helps clear your head!Take breaks: Get out of the office, do something fun.Take care of yourself: Don't absorb too much stress.Client management: Have strategies for demanding clients (homework, associates).Biggest Regret: What would Jack Zinda change about building his law firm?Focus on bigger cases sooner.Better vetting of hires (he had some crazy stories about bad hires!).You can reach Jack at:jack@zindalaw.com512-246-2224
In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica examines a pivotal voting rights case before the Supreme Court concerning Louisiana's congressional district lines. The case touches on the conflict between the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Jessica reviews the legal arguments, reflects on past decisions like Shelby County, and explores the case's broader implications. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Voting Rights Act and Supreme Court Case: Jessica Levinson delves into a Supreme Court case concerning the Voting Rights Act, highlighting a challenge over Louisiana's congressional districting. The essential question is whether the state violated the Act by diluting voting power or violated the Fourteenth Amendment by using race excessively in district creation.Louisiana District Lines Controversy: After the census, Louisiana's district lines came under scrutiny for having only one majority minority district, leading to lawsuits. The state later redrew the map to include two majority minority districts, sparking a new suit from non-African American voters claiming the excessive use of race in drawing these lines.Fourteenth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause: The tension between complying with the Voting Rights Act and the constraints of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause is a major theme. The conversation touches on recent affirmative action cases, emphasizing the court's perspective that race should not be the predominant factor.Follow Our Host and Guest: @LevinsonJessica
Zinda Law Group CEO and founder Jack Zinda teams up again with seasoned trial lawyer Max Massey to answer more of your top listener questions. This episode dives into key strategies for winning trials, building a successful law firm, and hiring the right legal talent. Whether you're a personal injury attorney, law firm owner, or aspiring trial lawyer, you'll find valuable, actionable insights in this episode. Winning a Big Trial - The Little Things That Matter : Deep case preparation strategies Monthly case review best practices Identifying and preparing key witnesses Effectively presenting non-economic damages Credibility of Non-Economic Witnesses: Build layered witness credibility Vet and prepare non-economic witnesses Anticipate challenges during cross-examination Hiring the Right Law Student or New Attorney : Communication and client connection skills Grit, competitiveness, and problem-solving ability Research and legal reasoning for new attorneys Identifying Candidates with the “It” Factor : How to recognize persistence and initiative What to look for in cover letters and resumes The importance of a strong work ethic Scaling a Law Firm: From Solo to Success : Building a financial and cash flow plan Smart, strategic hiring decisions Tracking key law firm metrics for growth Work-Life Balance for Law Firm Leaders : Time management and delegation strategies Protecting your calendar with key meetings Avoiding diminishing returns through work-life balance Starting Your Own Law Firm: The “Why” and the How: Defining your motivation and vision Building a solid financial and operational plan Marketing and client acquisition strategies
Our roundup episodes summarize brand-new, deposition-related court rulings from around the country. We cover four new rulings in this episode on crucial issues:You can successfully oppose even otherwise taxable deposition costs, when an adversary prevails, by making these fairness-based argumentsFRCP 30(b)(6) topic lists must be proportionate to the case, as a court ruled when refusing to evaluate a list of 503 topicsThe rule of sequestration does not apply in federal civil cases and the majority of states, but you may succeed in getting a court to impose it if you can show one of these "plus" factorsIn-person depositions are still a thing, and should not be treated as unusual or requiring an extraordinary showingAs always, thanks for listening! And remember - these episodes are always free and contain no advertising. What's the catch? Only that we'd ask you to leave us a 5-star rating wherever you download your podcasts. Those ratings are deeply motivating to, and deeply appreciated by, our research and production staff. And be sure to check out the book on which this podcast is based - 10,000 Depositions Later: The Premier Litigation Guide for Superior Deposition Practice. Now in its 4th edition at 625 pages, available on Amazon and almost everywhere books are sold.SHOW NOTESLUV N' CARE v. LINDSEY LAURAIN, ET AL, No. CV 3:16-00777, 2025 WL 622334, at *8 (W.D. La. Feb. 26, 2025) (while courts cannot award costs not explicitly identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1920, courts do have discretion to deny award of otherwise recoverable costs where fairness or other considerations dictate)NATHEN W. BARTON, Plaintiff, v. REAL INNOVATION INC. et al., Defendant., No. 3:24-CV-05194-DGE, 2025 WL 606167, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 25, 2025) See 36-page notice (Case 3:24-cv-05194-DGE Document 51-1 Filed 01/14/25 Page 1 of 36 (contains 503 actual questions, not topics)MARK WRIGHT-AHERN, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF CLERMONT, Defendant., No. 5:24-CV-173-MMH-PRL, 2025 WL 605059, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 25, 2025) (rule of sequestration does not apply to depositions, absent particularized showing of specific facts warranting the relief; the correct procedure for seeking to exclude a person from deposition is to seek a protective order); see also Order (from same case, awarding fees and explaining sequestration concept in depositions), CM/ECF Document No. 31, filed Jan. 31, 2025)UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. The M/Y Amadea, a Motor Yacht Bearing Int'l Mar. Org. No. 1012531, Defendant., No. 23 CIV. 9304 (DEH), 2025 WL 754124, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2025) (ordering witness to travel overseas to United States for in-person deposition, finding that while remote depositions are the new normal, there remains nothing unusual about insisting that a key witness appear in person)
Plaintiff John Doe, represented by Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, files this complaint against Defendant Sean Combs. The allegations are based on personal knowledge and information. Plaintiff asserts claims against Combs, detailing specific grievances and legal grounds for action. The complaint outlines the nature of the alleged wrongdoing, including factual and legal bases for holding Combs accountable.This lawsuit seeks relief for the harm allegedly caused by Combs, requesting appropriate legal remedies. The complaint establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting evidence, and sets forth claims that Plaintiff intends to prove in court. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks justice and compensation for the alleged misconduct by Defendant.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.1.0.pdf
A new constitutional crisis has broken out with the Trump Administration refusing to comply, again, with a Federal judge's orders. In a new filing, The Trump Administration just confessed to violating a Court Order to stop Trump's unconstitutional exercise of war powers to deport hundreds of people to El Salvador and Honduras in violation of a DC Chief Judge's order blocking that action, and the ACLU representing Plaintiffs have filed this morning their Notice to the Court outlining that the ways in which Trump has violated the Court's order, and demanding that the Court intervene and take action. Michael Popok breaks down what has happened in the last 48 hours, and what will happen next in court. To get our $297 when you buy a PAIR offer, including a free charger, head to https://ShopMDHearing.com and use code LEGALAF. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Hear that gurgling sound? That's the sound of the Trump DOJ, outmanned, outgunned, and underfunded courtesy of Elon Musk, losing regularly under the strain of 95 cases in the first 35 days of the Administration. Michael Popok reports on the DOJ telling an unsympathetic federal judge that they just couldn't get to his case because they don't have enough staff and what that means for Plaintiff's groups suing the Trump Administration at a record pace. Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made! Go to https://TryMiracle.com/LEGALAF and use the code LEGALAF to claim your FREE 3 PIECE TOWEL SET and SAVE over 40% OFF. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Legal AF's Michael Popok provides urgent live briefing on late breaking events. Tonight, Popok examines MSNBC's firing of all of its diverse anchors, including Katie Phang and Joy Reid, to bend the knee to Trump; Federal Courts holding the line against Trump and Musk as an open MAGA rebellion has broken out internally against Musk; the hallowing out of American Values by Trump in his policies and laws, as Trump breaks the connection and breaches the social contract between US citizens and their government; an overview of the 92 cases and 34 injunctions and restraining orders against the Trump Administration as Plaintiffs groups like Attorneys General, public interest groups, and democratic lawyers, win at a 99% rate so far in courts, and so much more at the intersection of law and politics. Support Our Sponsors: Rubbish: For 35% off your order, head to https://RubbishHome.com and use code LEGALAF VIIA: Try VIIA Hemp! https://viia.co/legalaf and use code LEGALAF! Naked Wines: Join the Naked Wines community and head to https://NakedWines.com/legalaf for 6 bottles of wine for JUST $39.99 with shipping included MD Hearing: To get our $297 when you buy a PAIR offer, including a free charger, head to https://ShopMDHearing.com and use code LEGALAF. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This week on Blocked and Reported, Jesse is joined by our furry friend Tracing Woodgrains/Jack Despain Zhou to discuss the rationalist trans murder cult. Plus, revisiting the DEI scandal at the FAA.zizians.infoEffective Altruism's Problems Go Beyond Sam Bankman-Fried - BloombergNet Negative – SinceriouslyGood Group and Pasek's Doom – SinceriouslyContainment Causes Suicidality | Mental EngineeringJay Leo Winterford (Jacob Ray Pekarek) Obituary - Estes Park, COin your dreamsMystery in Sonoma County after arrests of protesters in Guy Fawkes masks and robesA community alert about Ziz. Police investigations, violence, and… | by SefaShapiro | MediumJack LaSota Obituary (2022) - Fairbanks, AK - Daily News-MinerGWEN DANIELSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SONOMA, CALIFORNIATwo Alleged Squatters Charged In Vallejo Death of Friend and Sword Attack on LandlordSuspects in killings of Vallejo witness, Vermont border patrol agent connected by marriage license, extreme ideologyChester Heights Murder: Pennsylvania State Police say Delaware County couple homicide was not 'random act of violence' - 6abc PhiladelphiaPLUM OF DISCORD — I Became a Full-time Internet Pest and May Not... This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.blockedandreported.org/subscribe
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
